Report Lucianael's Profile

Come to my show. You'll see.

Standup comedians segue between jokes and so do proper cinematic works. This special was anal saaaaaaaaaaaauce! Best regards.

feliz año buenos aires

Some of your message I didn't think was clear in the way you distinguished between some of what I said and what you had to say about Snob; similarly, I'm not sure what to make of certain things you said toward the end of your most recent paragraph or how it relates. I didn't say it was pretentious for you to say utilitarian or am necessarily bothered by you mentioning it. Just poking fun a bit, in part because a subjective/objective argument is rearing its ugly head, which is maybe the most tiresome thing I see on this site. Nothing about Snob has changed, and he actually misinterprets fairly blatant things quite often, but I honestly doubt he even watches some of the stuff he talks about, especially given his more recent "objective consensus" appraisal of various reviews. Social value is subjective. What someone thinks is socially valuable for society is open for interpretation. You might find wide agreement or consensus, but that doesn't strictly make it objective. I assume you would tie a work's themes or messaging in with social value too, right? Highly subjective. I did peek at one of your conversations and found this: "My position on Takopi is solely based on my ethical views and my belief that the social good a work can cause is more important than its direct impact on the viewer over the time they experience it first hand. The value of this show is entirely based on your ethical framework, at least if you approach it from the same position as me, and I would very much say that, as long as your framework is internally consistent, you cannot say this show is bad." What you said here is part of Takopi's social value, correct? I did think the series was bad based on watching 1/3rd of it, btw, but that's entirely incidental. XD

What are the "problematic" aspects to the review? Are you able to write a "non-problematic" review, whatever that might mean? Just going on about blah blah blah biases, and I try to be as objective as possible blah blah blah, and it is my duty to magnanimously fulfill the needs of the people with my utilitarian method blah blah blah... doesn't necessarily mean you are any less biased than whatever other reviewer out there who fails to spout as lofty of ideals. What I'm saying in my prior message that you are so at odds with is how most criticism is actually handled, and trying to slap on a Mr. Objective coating is going to lead to a flat, personality-free, lukewarm review. Someone has a perspective, and they apply it, and they tend to have a vision for how things should be, or they will in time. That doesn't mean objectivity is completely thrown out the window. It's not pure subjectivity, and it's preposterous you would say that based on what I've said; it's realistically going to be a blend of subjectivity and objectivity, unless you go out of your way for that to not be the case. Reviewers subjectively grapple with various objective elements and parameters. Take an art critic like Clement Greenberg. He was promoting abstract expressionism. This is an extreme example of someone endorsing a niche/elitist art interest over the "public interest," with the average audience never having been keen on this level of abstraction in art. In contrast, we can just as easily imagine a counter-critic who is an advocate of a more conservative and figurative artist, like Norman Rockwell, which would have been more appealing to the masses of the time. And, to draw from what you've said, there are also different "social values" woven into these competing stances. "To be able to conclude the social value of a work, we need to be as free from bias as possible." The "social value" of a work is based on the values of society, which are subjective and subject to change. I've seen many of your biases on here from stumbling upon your comments on different profiles, and I know these biases shape what you think is of "social value," which would have much different mileage 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago or even now, depending on where you might peddle such and such idea. Nevertheless, your social value statement doesn't substantially differ from what I'm saying. You and others have a perspective of what is "socially valuable" and promote it and do the opposite with what is "not socially valuable." In these polarized times, others do the opposite because they have a different perspective on what is "socially valuable" from you. I think you've attempted to distance yourself from your own biases so much that you're starting to mistake some of your bias as not-bias.

I've seen a plethora of short films that were oversimplified and generalized that I found far more successful than this one. When it's this simplified, it comes almost fully down to presentation. If I recall correctly, it uses a single gimmick for the entirety of its presentation: simulating the passage of time via the movement of the pendulum of a clock, swaying back and forth. It's a clever trick, but that's, to me, all it boils down to, leaving it feeling cheap and overly sterile. I think the main issue is that it's too universalized to be compelling. Being comprehensible and relatable (in a highly general sense) to a wide range of cultures is one thing, but the author took the most depersonalized, one-note love story and conceptualized it with his time gimmick. There's, as you said, no personality to it. It's trying so hard to be accessible and make one cry that it becomes laughable. Although, again, even short of more extensive changes, I think this film would benefit from a soundtrack change. Something classier and not so tacky in its sentimentality.

I'm not sure how the presumed intended audience, the Japanese, might receive this; alternatively, it's possible the creator was looking to direct it at a more international audience through film festivals and the like--this is the fate of many independent works, with some of them being unknown in their country of origin and various foreign art critics gushing over them, though I can't speak with any certainty here. It doesn't strike me as feeling distinctly Japanese (would you have guessed it was Japanese if you were randomly screened this film, and they removed any Japanese text and withheld the name? Of course, it might be more obvious than I remember... but I haven't rewatched this...) and would feel at home in any developed country and quite a few less developed ones.

It's considerate to try and envision how the average person would experience the film and to write about that to some extent in commentary, but I reckon that's usually conveyed well enough through the positive reviews oftentimes (or in the negative reviews, the more outside of mainstream acceptance that we get) and certainly so in this case. There's not a "correct" answer, though I have had a number of commenters in the past who clearly think "assume the role of the average person and thus imagine how they might experience this work" is the ideal (Ha! Of course, they would!). I tend to favor judging Furiko, and most works, in relation to my own position (and one's own position may overlap with these audiences in some cases). I'm often less concerned with what a work is and how it relates to temporal audiences and more interested in what I think the work should be and the shape fiction should take in general. Ultimately, critics should be aspiring to influence culture through what they say (even if they have no influence or fail to publish). Either they are hoping to maintain the status quo or subvert it. For example, ThatAnimeSnob wants desexualized, realistic seinen about bald salarymen going through a midlife crisis rather than all these isekai and moeblob dating simulators, which is the impetus for all of his criticism.

yep

read ravage of times

Yeah, thanks

I hate to comment this, because I found your profile thanks to my encounter with that idiot.

Thanks for your principled posts about Takopi.

I did read all of it, just because I was interested in reading a different opinion from mine, but, as you said, it was WAY too pretentious. It just felt like someone trying to be different than the rest and coming off too aggressive in the process... or that's literally just their opinion and they are objectively wrong lmao.

It's okay, btw, not accepting friend requests from random internet people I mean. I rarely ever write comments in here, yours just really caught my attention and made me laugh out loud.

Always happy to meet folks with similar tastes. I'm really a fan of Ping Pong the Animation and Made in Abyss is one of my favourite manga and anime series. I'm specially hyped about the upcoming movie Cravagli and that chick who I always forget her name... also Srajo, the hot White Whistle lady, but that's a given.
Bunny Girls Senpai is also a banger, I need to start watching the new season, I've been too busy with Uni that I haven't gotten around it. I did watch the latest Mushoku Tensei season recently and, while I do have some opinions on how Rudy handled... well, some matters, I did love all of it. Amazing season overall.

I also saw you watched Baan recently! I haven't watched it yet, but I have high hopes for it since I've been following Garnt for... wow, like almost a decade? Jesus Christ.
What did you think of it? Did you like it?

"I do not think you have a functional moral framework." Has to be one of the hardest more destructive insults I've ever read and it came from a comment on a dog-shit review of Takopii no Genzai.
You have my generational respect for this one chief.

Godspeed.

hi sorry for the belated reply. long overdue but id still like to put out my 2 cents. anyway, i think your takeaway is a bit presumptuous. i dont think the question of "what does art mean to you" is innately pretentious, and honestly its a fair question to ask, especially since you don't know this person. in fact, this would be a completely different story had the intent been to exchange thoughts and criticisms. though the fact of the matter is, you went on a self-righteous soliloquy questioning his "moral framework" for simply disliking one of your favorite shows, which is quite pretentious.

i find your comment on ba-cii10's profile quite pretentious lol

Sorry for the late reply, I haven’t been on MAL much lately. Anyway, I sent you a friend request because I really liked your line of reasoning when you countered that guy who said atrocious things about Takopi. Also, I automatically become a fan of anyone with something related to Outer Wilds haha.
That said, I’m Brazilian and that guy is totally out of line. But honestly, it’s not even that shocking that he acts like that, considering the level of victim mentality and twisted sense of logic my people tend to have… especially when most of the population defends a thief.